RE: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??

2004-12-22 Thread Dirk-Willem van Gulik


On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Stephen McConnell wrote:

 Will the ASF shield me?

In normal cases - yes as it is in the interest of the ASF community and
codebase long term. And we are in it for the long term.

However if you go outside the CLA and the normal oversight process and
that is what causes the issue; no - most propably.

 I doubt it.  I really doubt it.

Thats OK. Nobody expects you to be a lemming. In fact the lemming rates
in the ASF are propably below national average.

Dw

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



RE: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??

2004-12-22 Thread Stephen McConnell


 -Original Message-
 From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: 22 December 2004 01:21
 To: community@apache.org
 Subject: RE: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
 
 
 
 On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Stephen McConnell wrote:
 
  Will the ASF shield me?
 
 In normal cases - yes as it is in the interest of the ASF community
and
 codebase long term. And we are in it for the long term.
 
 However if you go outside the CLA and the normal oversight process and
 that is what causes the issue; no - most propably.

Are here is the rub.  

The normal oversight process is closely tied to the policies and
procedures on the ground.  Things like release procedures, release
manager, etc.  We have several statements from members of the board that
policies and procedures established at the PMC level are in effect null
and void.  Given a scenario where a challenge occurs, the issue comes
down to an arbitrary decision by the board to stand behind the
individual, or, to do nothing and claim that doing nothing is in the
interest of the foundation.  

Cynical? Maybe .. but at least this discussion has established some
reference points concerning what is real and what is imaginary.

Cheers, Stephen.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??

2004-12-21 Thread Niclas Hedhman
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

 http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

The Jini technology is going Open Source and I think that is great, and even 
though I tried hard, it will not be under a ASL2.0 license, most likely the 
MIT license.
Furthermore, it was explained to me that the patent right disclaimers in the 
ASL2.0 can be circumvented in nasty ways by a truly malicious 
company/individual if that is the intent, SO the GPL compatibility had higher 
value than the patent right issue.

Now, hasn't their been licensing disputes from (L)GPL camps, IIRC JBoss??
Where they were accusing the ASF of breach of licensing.
Can't ASF pay back with the same coins, referring to their own authority (FSF) 
about that the licensing is incompatible...
So, Mr Fleury, please drop the following from your distribution (incl 
non-apache);

 * log4j
 * tomcat
 * jetty
 * beanshell
 * jasper
 * hsqldb
 * mx4j
 and on and on and on...

In my opinion (and people here knows I'm the kind who confronts, that's no 
secret) throw that at JBoss + FSF and see the reaction. Nice Christmas 
present.


Cheers
Niclas
-- 
   +--//---+
  / http://www.dpml.net   /
 / http://niclas.hedhman.org / 
+--//---+


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??

2004-12-21 Thread Henri Yandell

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
The Jini technology is going Open Source and I think that is great, and even
though I tried hard, it will not be under a ASL2.0 license, most likely the
MIT license.
I always thought the MIT licence was just the same as the BSD 1.1 licence. 
The GNU page lists a couple under that name (X11 License and Expat 
License). It'd be interesting to know why the MIT licence in particular is 
desired, I thought it was quite out of fashion nowadays.

Now, hasn't their been licensing disputes from (L)GPL camps, IIRC JBoss??
Where they were accusing the ASF of breach of licensing.
Can't ASF pay back with the same coins, referring to their own authority (FSF)
about that the licensing is incompatible...

From our point of view, ASL licenced code may be used in such products, so 
whether the FSF might have an issue or not with them is not in our realm 
of interest.

I'm also pretty sure that we're not looking for pay back with the same 
coins.

Hen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??

2004-12-21 Thread robert burrell donkin
On 21 Dec 2004, at 19:52, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
snip
Furthermore, it was explained to me that the patent right disclaimers 
in the
ASL2.0 can be circumvented in nasty ways by a truly malicious
company/individual if that is the intent, SO the GPL compatibility had 
higher
value than the patent right issue.
in europe at least, it's very likely that this won't really matter.
by this time next year, software patent violations are most likely to 
be enforceable by criminal sanction. any company wanted to maliciously 
damage an open source project would only have to target individual 
european release managers using the most pliant european legal system 
(UK law, for example). i don't see any way in which the ASF could act 
to help release managers faced with the criminal law in europe and 
(against this particular patent threat) neither the GPL nor the ASL 
could offer any protection at all. IMO the chilling effect of only one 
open source release manager facing a long prison sentence together with 
total sequestration of assets would be tremendous.

happy christmas, one and all!
- robert
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Is ASL2.0 not 'GPL-compatible' ??

2004-12-21 Thread Antonio Gallardo
On Mar, 21 de Diciembre de 2004, 14:15, robert burrell donkin dijo:
 On 21 Dec 2004, at 19:52, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
 On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

 snip

 Furthermore, it was explained to me that the patent right disclaimers
 in the
 ASL2.0 can be circumvented in nasty ways by a truly malicious
 company/individual if that is the intent, SO the GPL compatibility had
 higher
 value than the patent right issue.

 in europe at least, it's very likely that this won't really matter.

 by this time next year, software patent violations are most likely to
 be enforceable by criminal sanction. any company wanted to maliciously
 damage an open source project would only have to target individual
 european release managers using the most pliant european legal system
 (UK law, for example). i don't see any way in which the ASF could act
 to help release managers faced with the criminal law in europe and
 (against this particular patent threat) neither the GPL nor the ASL
 could offer any protection at all. IMO the chilling effect of only one
 open source release manager facing a long prison sentence together with
 total sequestration of assets would be tremendous.

As a workaround we can give release manager roles to people in countries
where this problems does not exists at all. ;-)

 happy christmas, one and all!

+1

Best Regards,

Antonio Gallardo



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??

2004-12-21 Thread Dirk-Willem van Gulik


On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, robert burrell donkin wrote:

  On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

  Furthermore, it was explained to me that the patent right disclaimers
  in the ASL2.0 can be circumvented in nasty ways by a truly malicious
  company/individual if that is the intent

I'd be interested in any detailed constructions as to how such would
happen. As we are constantly debugging our licenses.

 by this time next year, software patent violations are most likely to
 be enforceable by criminal sanction.

I fail to see how the current proposed changes would make any material
change in that respect for say, the netherlands, italy or germany.

 pliant european legal system (UK law, for example). i don't see any way
 in which the ASF could act to help release managers faced with the
 criminal law in europe

That is exactly what we are here for. And I can think of many ways to help
here. And we contineously try to improve this.

Also note that in the Apache Software Foundation it is not the release
manager who is distributing any code or choosing what to release when -
but the Apache Sofware Foundation.

There is a lot of due process to ensure that any release which goes out is
an ASF release and that any deceisions are taken by the committers with a
proper vote and with proper oversight by the board of directors. As long
as committers stick to their CLA and contributors to their license thenwe
can, and will choose, to do a lot to shield them.

Sure - the ASF itself and its Directors may end up in the hot seat - but
that is exactly what we are here for ;-)

Dw

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??

2004-12-21 Thread Erik Abele
On 21.12.2004, at 21:15, robert burrell donkin wrote:
by this time next year, software patent violations are most likely to 
be enforceable by criminal sanction. any company wanted to maliciously 
damage an open source project would only have to target individual 
european release managers using the most pliant european legal system 
(UK law, for example). i don't see any way in which the ASF could act 
to help release managers faced with the criminal law in europe and 
(against this particular patent threat) neither the GPL nor the ASL 
could offer any protection at all. IMO the chilling effect of only one 
open source release manager facing a long prison sentence together 
with total sequestration of assets would be tremendous.
...yeah, we already got our prisoner suits... :)
http://www.schlitt.info/applications/gallery/linuxtag_2004_day1/abn
http://www.schlitt.info/applications/gallery/linuxtag_2004_day2/abr
http://www.schlitt.info/applications/gallery/linuxtag_2004_day2/acw
Cheers,
Erik
Honestly, isn't the release manager protected in some way? 
Distributions are basically released by the ASF (as a legal entity) not 
the release manager himself and furthermore the PMC has to vote on a 
release; the RM is only the one doing the gruntwork, so I'd guess we're 
fine here. This doesn't apply to any other private or OSS engagements 
of course...

happy christmas, one and all!
- robert


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature


RE: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??

2004-12-21 Thread Stephen McConnell


 -Original Message-
 From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: 21 December 2004 21:59
 To: community@apache.org
 Subject: Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
 
 
 
 On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, robert burrell donkin wrote:
 
   On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
 
   Furthermore, it was explained to me that the patent right
disclaimers
   in the ASL2.0 can be circumvented in nasty ways by a truly
malicious
   company/individual if that is the intent
 
 I'd be interested in any detailed constructions as to how such would
 happen. As we are constantly debugging our licenses.
 
  by this time next year, software patent violations are most likely
to
  be enforceable by criminal sanction.
 
 I fail to see how the current proposed changes would make any material
 change in that respect for say, the netherlands, italy or germany.
 
  pliant european legal system (UK law, for example). i don't see any
way
  in which the ASF could act to help release managers faced with the
  criminal law in europe
 
 That is exactly what we are here for. And I can think of many ways to
help
 here. And we contineously try to improve this.
 
 Also note that in the Apache Software Foundation it is not the release
 manager who is distributing any code or choosing what to release when
-
 but the Apache Sofware Foundation.
 
 There is a lot of due process to ensure that any release which goes
out is
 an ASF release and that any deceisions are taken by the committers
with a
 proper vote and with proper oversight by the board of directors. As
long
 as committers stick to their CLA and contributors to their license
thenwe
 can, and will choose, to do a lot to shield them.

Will the ASF shield me?
I doubt it.  I really doubt it.
Stephen.




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??

2004-12-21 Thread Scott Sanders
On Dec 21, 2004, at 1:17 PM, Stephen McConnell wrote:
There is a lot of due process to ensure that any release which goes
out is
an ASF release and that any deceisions are taken by the committers
with a
proper vote and with proper oversight by the board of directors. As
long
as committers stick to their CLA and contributors to their license
thenwe
can, and will choose, to do a lot to shield them.
Will the ASF shield me?
I doubt it.  I really doubt it.
Stephen.
Why do you say things like this?  Do you fail to understand this is the 
primary reason for the establishment of the ASF.

Scott
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


RE: Is ASL2.0 not 'GPL-compatible' ??

2004-12-21 Thread Antonio Gallardo
On Mar, 21 de Diciembre de 2004, 15:17, Stephen McConnell dijo:
 Will the ASF shield me?
 I doubt it.  I really doubt it.
 Stephen.

Why not Stephen? In all stuff related to the ASF I guess the answer is a
clear yes as whatever other ASF committer or member. Why you doubt it?
AFAIK there is no a clausule telling: All committers or members, except
Stephen ;-)

I truly believe we can have diferences including diferent POVs and hard
discussions this is normal in every community, even inside families.

Best Regards,

Antonio Gallardo



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??

2004-12-21 Thread Niclas Hedhman
On Wednesday 22 December 2004 04:59, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
 On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, robert burrell donkin wrote:

  pliant european legal system (UK law, for example). i don't see any way
  in which the ASF could act to help release managers faced with the
  criminal law in europe

 Also note that in the Apache Software Foundation it is not the release
 manager who is distributing any code or choosing what to release when -
 but the Apache Sofware Foundation.

I don't claim to know anything about the European sw patent issue, but 
assuming that Robert is fairly well informed, the situation would become;

ASF can not issue a statement superceding the law, esp not criminal law, no 
matter how much it wants to take blame in the criminal act. Worst thing that 
could happen would be that both are charged, and if found guilty ASF slapped 
with a hefty fine, which it can't pay, which may lead to confiscation of the 
physical assets in Europe and possibly restriction on how it is allowed to do 
business there.

I thought that common sense would finally come to the whole sw patent issue in 
europe, and didn't bother to keep abreast of the development.

Scary. Indeed. I feel for you guys.

Cheers
Niclas
-- 
   +--//---+
  / http://www.dpml.net   /
 / http://niclas.hedhman.org / 
+--//---+


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??

2004-12-21 Thread Niclas Hedhman
On Wednesday 22 December 2004 05:23, Scott Sanders wrote:
 On Dec 21, 2004, at 1:17 PM, Stephen McConnell wrote:
  Will the ASF shield me?
  I doubt it.  I really doubt it.

 Why do you say things like this?  Do you fail to understand this is the
 primary reason for the establishment of the ASF.

He is in a bad mood. He is leaving Europe shortly (pre-empting the Patent 
issue) and will be missing the food, cigars and cafes he enjoyed in Paris 
over the last few years.

Cheers
Niclas
-- 
   +--//---+
  / http://www.dpml.net   /
 / http://niclas.hedhman.org / 
+--//---+


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??

2004-12-21 Thread Rainer Klute
Am Dienstag, den 21.12.2004, 20:15 + schrieb robert burrell donkin:
 in europe at least, it's very likely that this won't really matter.
 
 by this time next year, software patent violations are most likely to 
 be enforceable by criminal sanction. ...

I don't think so. The winds are changing and blowing into the faces of
those who are in favour of software patents. Unfortunately the European
Council is still amongs those - in contrary to most European
parliaments. I do hope that the council will be unable to enforce its
directive on software patents: As of today they suffered a heavy defeat
when they wanted to silently pass the directive without discussion in the
Agriculture and Fisheries (!) configuration: Poland's representative
refused to wave through the council's directive without discussion. 
This caused the case to be taken off from the agenda. However, other
ministers in the council did not have that courage and would have 
passed the guideline because they simply did not want to blame the
Netherlands which have the council's presidentship at present.
Now the blame is on themselves.

Everything is open again: Next year Luxembourg will have the 
presidentship, and one might wonder whether they want to carry on with
this stuff. The change in presidentship might offer a change for the
European goverments to start listening to their parliaments and abandon
any further tries to enforce software patents.

Even if the European Council manages to pass the directive there is
still the European Parliament which has already proven to be against
software patents and could cancel the directive.

All in all, I am quite optimistic for 2005.

Best regards
Rainer Klute

   Rainer Klute IT-Consulting GmbH
  Dipl.-Inform.
  Rainer Klute E-Mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  K├Ârner Grund 24  Telefon: +49 172 2324824
D-44143 Dortmund   Telefax: +49 231 5349423

Softwarepatente verhindern: http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??

2004-12-21 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr .
On Dec 21, 2004, at 4:23 PM, Scott Sanders wrote:
On Dec 21, 2004, at 1:17 PM, Stephen McConnell wrote:

Will the ASF shield me?
I doubt it.  I really doubt it.
Stephen.
Why do you say things like this?  Do you fail to understand this is 
the primary reason for the establishment of the ASF.
s/Do//
--
Geir Magnusson Jr  +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??

2004-12-21 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 03:52 +0800, Niclas Hedhman wrote:

 Now, hasn't their been licensing disputes from (L)GPL camps, IIRC JBoss??
 Where they were accusing the ASF of breach of licensing.
 Can't ASF pay back with the same coins, referring to their own authority 
 (FSF) 
 about that the licensing is incompatible...
 So, Mr Fleury, please drop the following from your distribution (incl 
 non-apache);
 
  * log4j
  * tomcat
  * jetty
  * beanshell
  * jasper
  * hsqldb
  * mx4j
  and on and on and on...

It's not for us to decide for projectx whether they deem ASF-2.0
licensed software to be incompatible with their (L)GPL'ed code or not.
The people that release ASF 2.0 licensed software don't need to care
about this, because the problem is not the ASF 2.0 license but another
(in this case (L)GPL) which states that the result must be licensed
again under this other license (in this case (L)GPL. 

In other words: The ASF IMHO does not need to care. Because the ASF 2.0
is not violated.

 In my opinion (and people here knows I'm the kind who confronts, that's no 
 secret) throw that at JBoss + FSF and see the reaction. Nice Christmas 
 present.

If this gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling all over, go ahead and tell
them...

Regards
Henning



-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen  INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/

RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- hero for hire
   Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development

What is more important to you...
   [ ] Product Security
or [ ] Quality of Sales and Marketing Support
  -- actual question from a Microsoft customer survey



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


RE: Is ASL2.0 not 'GPL-compatible' ??

2004-12-21 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 15:28 -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
 On Mar, 21 de Diciembre de 2004, 15:17, Stephen McConnell dijo:

 AFAIK there is no a clausule telling: All committers or members, except
 Stephen ;-)

You don't seem to have access to the purple files...

Regards
Henning


-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen  INTERMETA GmbH
[EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0   http://www.intermeta.de/

RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development  -- hero for hire
   Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development

What is more important to you...
   [ ] Product Security
or [ ] Quality of Sales and Marketing Support
  -- actual question from a Microsoft customer survey



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


RE: Is ASL2.0 not 'GPL-compatible' ??

2004-12-21 Thread Antonio Gallardo
On Mar, 21 de Diciembre de 2004, 17:12, Henning Schmiedehausen dijo:
 On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 15:28 -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
 On Mar, 21 de Diciembre de 2004, 15:17, Stephen McConnell dijo:

 AFAIK there is no a clausule telling: All committers or members, except
 Stephen ;-)

 You don't seem to have access to the purple files...

Please! we don't need that! ;-)

Best Regards,

Antonio Gallardo


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??

2004-12-20 Thread Joshua Slive

Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Does anyone know, and preferably have any authorative-like links ??
http://www.apache.org/licenses/
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
Joshua.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??

2004-12-20 Thread Nicola Ken Barozzi
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
...
Does anyone know, and preferably have any authorative-like links ??
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
   (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
-
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??

2004-12-20 Thread Niclas Hedhman
On Monday 20 December 2004 23:54, Joshua Slive wrote:
 Niclas Hedhman wrote:
  Does anyone know, and preferably have any authorative-like links ??

 http://www.apache.org/licenses/
 http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

thanks!!!
-- 
   +--//---+
  / http://www.dpml.net   /
 / http://niclas.hedhman.org / 
+--//---+


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??

2004-12-20 Thread Henri Yandell

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Monday 20 December 2004 23:54, Joshua Slive wrote:
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Does anyone know, and preferably have any authorative-like links ??
http://www.apache.org/licenses/
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
thanks!!!
Of far more interest I think:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
The list of incompatible licences is not a small one.
Hen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]